A group of NATO members driving the development of a next-generation military rotorcraft are in the coming weeks expected to sign an agreement that will pave the way for the project’s concept design phase to begin in 2026.
However, the renewal of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) that governs the Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) work will also signal the exit, from the end of 2025, of one of the seven nations currently involved.
An initial group of six countries – France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK – were joined in March 2024 by Canada, which had previously held observer status.
Management of the project is being undertaken on their behalf by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), which in July awarded contracts to rotorcraft manufacturers Airbus, Leonardo and Sikorsky to carry out integrated platform concept studies – also known as study 5 – for the programme.
These studies – each comprising up to two concepts – will be delivered in October next year, allowing the NSPA to prepare its report to the nations.
“We are progressing well on concept studies, we are progressing well with the nations, we’re starting to define what could be the next chapter of the NGRC story,” says Cyril Heckel, NGRC programme manager at the NSPA. “This study contract award represents another leap forward for the NSPA, as the agency becomes the premier choice for multinational defence acquisition across the Alliance through its key link between nations and industry,” he adds.
Once the amendment to the MoU is signed off – a milestone expected before the end of October – “we can start thinking about the next phase”, says Heckel.
That will include next year starting to draft the programme requirements so they are ready for mid-2026 and the launch of a tender to “identify the NGRC solution”, to be followed by the award of a development and production contract.
To meet the NGRC project’s current ambition of delivering the first platform “before 2040 – ideally by 2038”, that contract needs to be in place by around 2030, he says. However, the exact timelines and competitive process still need to be agreed with the member states.
But that group is set to shrink, says Heckel: “There is one nation that will not renew its contribution to NGRC [post-2025] after the current concept studies.”
He declines to identify the country that is leaving, although Greece is seen as the most likely candidate based on its comparatively weaker aerospace industry.
“So with six nations I still feel confident. But if you ask me maybe until the end of 2029 when we go for the development contract there is a big chance that the group of nations will evolve again,” he adds, either through existing members leaving or new partners joining.
However, in the meantime, the membership is set; while there is high-level interest in the project “there is no official candidate saying ‘I want to join NGRC tomorrow’”, says Heckel.
“Maybe once we have the results from study five and we start seeing concept solutions and have a better idea of the initial set of requirements for NGRC then the interest from some NATO members might increase.”
Ultimately the number of nations involved will matter less than the number of rotorcraft systems being acquired through the programme – the higher the figure, the lower the unit cost.
Heckel maintains that the feedback so far from the NGRC nations has been “positive” because “we are delivering according to the plan”.
A first industry-led study – examining powerplant options – concluded in July, while a similar study into the proposed open system architecture (OSA) for the platform will end in December.
Led by Sikorsky parent Lockheed Martin, recent activities under the latter workstream included a demonstration, held at the company’s site in Owego, New York in mid-September, to showcase the advantages of an OSA-based system.
In particular, it highlighted how quickly changes could be incorporated into the avionics or displays. “The loop of implementation between the request and the final result is really short, which is not the case currently,” says Heckel.
Neither of the studies conducted by industry are intended to force the platform concepts down one route or another, but are designed to “provide an agnostic view” and enhance knowledge at the NSPA and nation level.
For instance, while the powerplant study, carried out by GE Aerospace, concluded that engines based on 2025 gas turbine technology would present “the likely best option”, there is nothing to prevent one of the platform studies incorporating a more advanced solution if the contractor can “provide a tangible demonstration to show that it is realistic”.
Meanwhile, two further studies are being undertaken at the NSPA or national level, developing both the concept of operations (CONOPS) for the platform and examining emerging disruptive technologies that could play a part in the project, such as artificial intelligence or advanced manufacturing.
To conduct the former, the NSPA will contract France’s DGA defence procurement agency and the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory; “an agreement setting out the scope of work is expected to be signed off by the parties by year-end”, says Heckel.
It is expected to perform simulations and modelling activities against the NGRC attributes and CONOPS, and will be used to help assess the results of the platform concept studies.
“We expect our contractors to perform the same modelling and simulation activities to demonstrate that their concept solutions can answer the NGRC attributes and the CONOPS – but we also wanted an independent assessment from a governmental entity.”
Although the NGRC support partnership is dominated by European nations, the award of study contracts to GE, Lockheed and Sikorsky have led to criticism that the project is evolving into a shop window for US industry.
Heckel plays down fears that the project is becoming too US-centric. He says that from day one it has “been an open competition for industry in all NATO nations”, and points out that thanks to the US Army’s Future Vertical Lift programme, its industry has already “explored related fields”.
Additionally, it was decided to have three companies conducting the platform studies “to ensure diversity in the result”.
Although he acknowledges that should NGRC move to the production stage “we know that nations will have a look on the return of investment for their industry”, an issue that will need to be worked through ahead of the contracting.
“A full US solution for our current group of nations would have a very low probability to be successful,” he says.
“It’s quite obvious when you see the partners in the group of nations we still need to have a part of European industry in the solution for sure.”
However, in his view, the “main goal today” is to deliver a system that meets operational requirements rather than focusing too tightly on workshare, which could “impact the quality of the product”.
The three platform studies are also unlikely to produce a clear ‘winner’; each design could perform better or worse depending on how the eventual requirements are set.
Study 5 is an opportunity for contractors to say what is or is not realistic – which of the NGRC attributes can be met, or met at what cost. “The objective is not to have concept solutions where they say ‘we tick the box for everything because we are stretching our concept in a way that it answers everything’. Once the requirements are written there is no possibility to stretch.”
Any future tender “will be open again to the entire rotorcraft industry even some those that were not [platform concept study] winners will have the chance to be part of NGRC. Our competitive process is based on cooperation, transparency and trust and these are the well-defined principles that nurture the mutually beneficial relationship between industry and the NSPA to the benefit of NATO allies.”
